Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Just because species have not been negatively affected in the past (to your knowledge) doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Imagine if a new set of power lines were installed across the migration paths of some large herbivores - they might affect their migration, and so the health of the groups affected. That means their normal predators (whose numbers have grown large enough to be sustained by that group of herbivores) are now without enough food. They might just start attacking humans. That's pretty extreme, but it's an example of a much worse secondary effect of what otherwise seems like a rather benign primary effect.
No-one's calling this the "next global warming", and you might want to leave your Al Gore bashing out of this so you don't look quite so ridiculous.
I appreciate your stance, but this whole "but X is adaptable!" answer to having to change our behaviour to help X is clearly limited. We need to know the scale of the impact before we know if they're adaptable enough to adapt to the changes we are throwing at them. I'm sure you appreciate that if the change we are talking about is simply making them walk 1 meter out of their way - they can probably adapt to that. If the change is causing them to jump off cliffs, there's not much adaptability that would work in that case.
Are you aware that we rely on other species to survive? We evolved with those other species around - removing them from our environment might indeed change the balance of wildlife to the point where things we directly rely on start being affected by our changes to other species. Yes, humans are awesome and clever and can fly and go to the moon and everything, but we still breathe the same air as other (air-breathing) animals, drink the same water, and live on the same planet.
Our role in nature should be to not mess with nature so much that we die out. The status quo got us this far - changing it too much is not a good idea. Science can tell us what constitutes "too much", and ignoring that is folly. Suicidal folly.
I come at this from a completely different viewpoint, having only recently dipped my toes into Linux - for me, a package manager is a relatively new concept. The nearest I've come to it previously has been with Apple's App Store, both for iOS and now OSX - plenty of choice, sometimes too much choice.
As far as manually installing apps goes, it usually boils down to double-clicking on the DMG file to mount it, then either running the installation package or dragging the app file to your Applications folder.
In theory, uninstalling apps is as simple as dragging the app file to the Trash. I say 'in theory' because apps do leave behind some detritus formed by using them - thankfully not to the same degree as Windows, but it is there. For suites of apps like Microsoft Office or Adobe Creative Cloud, there tends to be a lot more extra stuff deposited onto your system besides the apps themselves.
Sadly, updates do tend to be on a per-app basis, with the exception of those acquired through the App Store, which handles the update process.
Most people on this thread understand that a cheap Boeing 737 costs about 60 million USD. For $100,000, knowing that an jetliner could not be lost, that is a sum the public may demand that the airlines pay. That is to say, for about 1/10 of 1% of the cost of a very cheap jetliner, this sort of massive charlie foxtrot would likely not take place again.
Further, there is a long tradition of government interference being required in the transportation industry to force changes that benefit overall public safety. Railroad history is rife with them, including entire political parties (The Grange) put together in an effort to boost regulation of a necessary industry. If the government is going to give away airports and airspace, allow jetliners to dump pollutants into the air, and provide gaterape security, then it is not unreasonable to ask airline companies to pony up 1/10th of 1% of the cost of an airplane to improve security.
She calls US paranoid for thinking that the government would ever trample our rights.